I think statutory rape laws should be changed for people who are 18 or so and now have to be registered as a sex offender for having sex with someone who's under 18.

Statutory rape- The term "statutory rape" is used in some legal jurisdictions to refer to sexual activities in which one person is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior, it can also be charged with sexual behaviors with two under aged minors.

Okay, I am going to state why I think rules should be changed. But first, I would just like to say this: Rules for sex offenders are pretty harsh, and I think they are fair to the people that do deserve them. But to the people that have to register because they were 18 and had sex with a 15 year old, they are very unfair. Here are a few of the rules, or laws, that sex offenders have:

LIVING ARRANGMENTS: Sex offenders often cannot own or control personal computers. If community corrections officers permit access to computers, they normally must have blocks that prevent access to specific sites. Offenders also cannot have contact with magazines, videos, telephone sites or anything else with pornographic content. Offenders must allow their community corrections officers to inspect every part of their homes.

ALCOHOL AND DRUGS: Offenders cannot purchase, possess or consume any mind or mood altering substances, including alcohol or drugs that haven’t been prescribed by doctors. They may have to undergo chemical dependency treatment and follow prescribed treatment, which may include Alcoholics Anonymous or other recovery meetings. Offenders are required to submit to urine and/or breathalyzer tests to monitor compliance. They also must submit to DNA and HIV testing.

CONTACT: The court may also order an offender to have contact with members of the offenders’ families--including their own children.

ENTERTAINMENT: Offenders cannot patronize any establishment in the sex industry, including topless dancing clubs, sex toy outlets or houses of prostitution. [No strip clubs :( (I threw this one in there for fun!) ]

As you can see, to the perverts that actually deserve this, [Rapists, etc.] then this is fair. But not to the teen that dated someone a couple years younger than them.

What I think we could do to change the laws:

1. Maybe we could do a 5 year span. So a 16YO can date a 21YO, but any more than five years, the law can get them. Of course, I don't see why an 18YO would date a 13YO, but if it floats their boat, the law shouldn't have a say, if both consent.

2. Change the rules to where if they were in a relationship and broke up, the underage person can't file for rape. This is not a way to get back at someone, and there are cases of this happenening.

There is an episode on MTV True Life: Im A Sex Offender, where this 18 year old named Justin had a 15 year old girlfriend. She recorded them having sex, and then after they broke up, she went to the police and showed them the tape for revenge. I don't think this should be allowed to go down as a "sex offender" charge.

3. 14, 15, 16 year olds know right from wrong. They know what they are doing whenever they agree to sex. However, legally, they are not old enough to "consent". If they are old enough to put themselves in that position, they are old enough to consent!

They know what they are doing just as well as the one who isn't a "minor", so why isn't the minor getting charged too? I mean, they are helping assist in a "crime".

These are just a few of my points and I look forward to the next round! Thank you!

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate and shall begin at once.

The term statutory rape "generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty" if before the age of puberty that is considered child molestation and is much more serious. (2)

As my opponent has the BOP to prove why the resolution should be upheld, I will begin at once in refuting my opponent's contentions.

1."Maybe we could do a 5 year span. So a 16YO can date a 21YO, but any more than five years, the law can get them. Of course, I don't see why an 18YO would date a 13YO, but if it floats their boat, the law shouldn't have a say, if both consent."

I do not see how this is relevant. A 16 year old can DATE a 21 year old they just cannot engage in sexual activity. If your intent, a 16 year old is at the age of consent in most jurisdictions (1) therefore, this really does not apply to him or her. The 13 year old, on the other hand, is below this age of consent. My opponent has not really given any compelling reason to change the age of consent. Legally, they are unable to consent, and until given a compelling reason to accept why they should be able, it should stay that way.

2."Change the rules to where if they were in a relationship and broke up, the underage person can't file for rape."

The problem, in this case, is proof there is no way to prove they were in a relationship. Relationships are not legally recognized by the state. There is no legal documentation as to them being in a relationship, so legally, they are not in a relationship.

3."14, 15, 16 year olds know right from wrong. They know what they are doing whenever they agree to sex. However, legally, they are not old enough to "consent". If they are old enough to put themselves in that position, they are old enough to consent!"

Simply knowing "right from wrong" does not equate to anything. Under my opponent's logic, an 8 year old knows right from wrong, should they be able to legally consent to sex, should child molestation not be a crime? Furthermore, my opponent has provided no reason for us to believe "14, 15, 16 year olds know right from wrong." Should we just take their word on the matter? My opponent has not proven they know right from wrong.

"They know what they are doing whenever they agree to sex." This is another unsubstantiated claim by my opponent. How can they know this?

"If they are old enough to put themselves in that position, they are old enough to consent!" A five year old is old enough to put him or herself in this position. Does that mean the 5 year old is old enough to consent? Simply because one is old enough to do something does not mean legally they should be allowed to do it. A 15 year old is old enough to be able to carry a gun, should they be allowed to join the military?

"They know what they are doing just as well as the one who isn't a "minor", so why isn't the minor getting charged too? I mean, they are helping assist in a "crime"

The minor legally had never consented to having sex, thus there is no consent. Therefore, it is rape which is defined as "sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent." (3) The adult, in this case, had no legal consent.

To conclude, almost all of my opponent's case revolves around the revision of the Age of Consent yet; they have provided absolutely no compelling reason to change the Age of Consent. Therefore, my opponent has not upheld their BOP.